Tattoo-covered Cop locks young woman in patrol vehicle parked on train tracks; doesn't end well

[highspeeds]

They should, but that depends largely on the department, and how accessible administration makes those policies.



Attempted murder? I don't see that. The officer that put her in that car should be charged with criminal recklessness resulting in serious bodily injury.

Qualified immunity covers lawful actions, or actions that an officer believed in good faith were lawful.

If I chain someone up. And cage them. On the tracks. And they die. Will I be charged with murder ? Of course, right ? This incident in the video is attempted murder. At the least it's attempted manslaughter.

A place I used to deliver all the time. The girl spent 7 years in jail. She was driving drunk. Friend in the car. Got into a wreck and the friend died. She goes to jail. Same way. These cops need to go to jail. They are responsible for what happened.

Do you believe parking on the tracks or putting someone into a a car that is parked on the tracks should be considered to be lawful or in good faith ?

 

[Ex 5-0]

So anyone with lights and a uniform and you lose all your rights ? Is that even how it's suppoed to work with a real cop ? Don't citizens have rights during a traffic stop ?

I never said that. I don't understand your question. This wasn't a traffic stop. The police stopped the vehicle for a suspected criminal offense, not a civil traffic offense.

So we don't know the period of time between the call and the traffic stop. But if someone had done something illegal and intentionally put another person into that vehicle to dodge capture. Is that person in that vehicle now guilty on the spot ?

No, but the police will assume that the person is the suspect they are looking for, until it can be determined that she is not.

The holster was found after they began searching. She was never asked for consent to search

If they didn't see the holster before they started moving stuff, that could be an issue. However, if they were arresting her, then they can search the vehicle without consent.

An officer doesn't need to have an explanation for being the threat and being the danger ? Are you comfortable with people pointing guns at you ? I am certainly not at all okay with anyone ever pointing a gun at me. Guns don't keep people safe. They get people killed. It's not a shield or a piece of armor. It is a tool of death. It's only purpose is to take life. It's not at all absurd to believe that the police should be able to handle expalning themselves. She asks repeatedly and is denied any communication.

If you are a potentially dangerous suspect, no, I am not going to explain why I am pointing a gun at you. Once you are safely detained and searched, and you are no longer a threat, I will explain it to you.

So a couple weeks of class work. How ever many years ago. And no follow up training ?

Depends on each state's laws, and varies by department.

 

[Ex 5-0]

If I chain someone up. And cage them. On the tracks. And they die. Will I be charged with murder ? Of course, right ? This incident in the video is attempted murder. At the least it's attempted manslaughter.

Criminal offenses require Mens Rea, or criminal intent. Chaining someone to a railroad track is done with the intention of that person being killed.

What occurred in the video is negligence. Negligence can still be a crime, although it lacks the intent. The officer did not intend for a train to hit the car with the woman inside it. However, since the officer negligently placed the suspect in danger, in a situation that the officer should have absolutely realized was dangerous, she should be charged with criminal negligence resulting in serious bodily injury.

I have never heard of attempted manslaughter. That doesn't even make sense. Manslaughter is killing a human without malice intent. Manslaughter cannot be premeditated, so it cannot be attempted. Manslaughter is killing someone accidentally. Since no one died, manslaughter doesn't enter the equation. Neither does murder, or attempted murder, because no one tried to kill anyone. An officer made a very stupid, reckless, negligent decision, and put someone in an extremely dangerous situation, who was seriously injured. The officer should be held responsible, but not charged with murder.

A place I used to deliver all the time. The girl spent 7 years in jail. She was driving drunk. Friend in the car. Got into a wreck and the friend died. She goes to jail. Same way. These cops need to go to jail. They are responsible for what happened.

I never disagreed with you on that. Driving drunk is reckless and negligent. Same as putting someone in a car on a railroad track. Did the girl who was driving drunk intend to kill anyone? No. Neither did the officer. But they both made choices that they knew were irresponsible, and someone else paid the price.

Do you believe parking on the tracks or putting someone into a a car that is parked on the tracks should be considered to be lawful or in good faith ?

Nope. Just defining what qualified immunity is, since every person that's against it doesn't actually understand what it is or how it works. It would not pertain to this situation, I can tell you that.

 

[highspeeds]

Criminal offenses require Mens Rea, or criminal intent. Chaining someone to a railroad track is done with the intention of that person being killed.

What occurred in the video is negligence. Negligence can still be a crime, although it lacks the intent. The officer did not intend for a train to hit the car with the woman inside it. However, since the officer negligently placed the suspect in danger, in a situation that the officer should have absolutely realized was dangerous, she should be charged with criminal negligence resulting in serious bodily injury.

I have never heard of attempted manslaughter. That doesn't even make sense. Manslaughter is killing a human without malice intent. Manslaughter cannot be premeditated, so it cannot be attempted. Manslaughter is killing someone accidentally. Since no one died, manslaughter doesn't enter the equation. Neither does murder, or attempted murder, because no one tried to kill anyone. An officer made a very stupid, reckless, negligent decision, and put someone in an extremely dangerous situation, who was seriously injured. The officer should be held responsible, but not charged with murder.


I never disagreed with you on that. Driving drunk is reckless and negligent. Same as putting someone in a car on a railroad track. Did the girl who was driving drunk intend to kill anyone? No. Neither did the officer. But they both made choices that they knew were irresponsible, and someone else paid the price.



Nope. Just defining what qualified immunity is, since every person that's against it doesn't actually understand what it is or how it works. It would not pertain to this situation, I can tell you that.

More answers ! Thank you. Clearly asking as a guy that drives a truck. Not anyone that knows a thing about any of it.